SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
world war i
On Armistice Day, Veterans Call for an Armistice in Gaza and Beyond
One hundred and six years after the end of World War I, another such deadly concoction is brewing. War is permanent. Genocide is on TV. A desperate empire is pushing human civilization toward a tragic end.
Nov 11, 2024
November 11, declared Armistice Day at the end of World War I, is celebrated in the U.S. as Veterans Day. Understanding why requires us to recall World War I and its aftermath.
World War I was an international conflict, from 1914-18, that embroiled most of the nations of Europe, along with Russia, the United States, the Middle East, and other regions. The war pitted the “Central Powers”—mainly Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey—against the “Allies”—mainly France, Great Britain, Russia, Italy, and (from 1917) the United States. The war was unprecedented in the slaughter, carnage, and destruction it caused. Over 15 million people were killed—both soldiers and civilians, and over 25 million were wounded.
The First World War ended in November 1918 when an armistice was declared at the “11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month,” marking a moment of hope and the promise of peace. It was also a moment of great sadness and a sense of great tragedy. Many people prayed this would be “the war to end all wars,” and that Armistice Day would serve as an eternal warning never to repeat the past. But then came World War II.
“When U.S. bombs stop dropping on Palestinian children, the genocide will end.”
After the end of World War II and the Korean War cease-fire, in 1954 veterans’ organizations pushed the U.S. Congress to switch the holiday’s name to Veterans Day, a day to honor those who fight in war. Could it be that—having emerged from World War II unscathed and more powerful than ever, the United States was not ready to abandon militarism? Whatever the intention, the holiday’s meaning was turned on its head—a day for war instead of a day for peace.
The national organization Veterans For Peace has been working to Reclaim Armistice Day as a day that is dedicated to ending war once and for all. Veterans lead Armistice Day activities around the country, many incorporating the ringing of bells at the “11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month.” Now the veterans group is also calling for peace in the Middle East.
The looming threats of climate catastrophe and nuclear annihilation have been overshadowed this year by Israel’s horrific ongoing genocide of Palestinian civilians in Gaza—up to 50,000 killed, nearly 70% of whom are women and children. For 13 months straight, unspeakable atrocities have filled our screens and haunted our consciences. We can see clearly that the U.S. government is complicit in Israel’s merciless ethnic cleansing. The bombs that Israel drops on Palestinian children are made in the USA and delivered by the U.S. government. U.S.-backed Israeli wars have now expanded to Palestine’s West Bank, to Lebanon, and to Iran, risking a wider war, possibly even a global war that could “go nuclear.”
According to Wikipedia: Scholars trying to understand the cause of World War I “look at political, territorial, and economic competition; militarism, a complex web of alliances and alignments; imperialism, the growth of nationalism; and the power vacuum created by the decline of the Ottoman Empire.” One hundred and six years after the end of World War I, another such deadly concoction is brewing. War is permanent. Genocide is on TV. A desperate empire is pushing human civilization toward a tragic end.
No More U.S. Bombs To Israel
This year, Veterans For Peace is calling for an Armistice—a permanent cease-fire in Palestine, Lebanon, and throughout the Middle East, and for an end to U.S. arms shipments to Israel.
“When U.S. bombs stop dropping on Palestinian children, the genocide will end,” said VFP Vice President Joshua Shurley.
The 39-year-old veterans’ organization, with chapters in over 100 US cities, recently issued a statement in support of Israeli and U.S. soldiers who refuse to take part genocide, illegal wars, and war crimes.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Israel's Conscientious Objectors Stand on the Shoulders of Giants
Refusing to fight in unjust and brutal wars is not new, but it remains a rare act of courage.
Mar 22, 2024
According to legend, the organization I lead, the Fellowship of Reconciliation, was founded in August 1914 when a British Quaker and a German Lutheran shook hands at a railway station in Cologne. With England on the cusp of joining World War I, they pledged, "We are one in Christ and can never be at war."
After Germany sunk the Lusitania ship in May 1915, American public support for joining the war swelled. But not everyone got on board.
Political activist and theologian A.J. Muste responded to his country’s gearing up for war by becoming a pacifist. His views resulted in him being forced out of his pastoral position. Likewise, pacifist and social reformer Jane Addams (who later went on to win the Nobel Peace Prize) was viciously criticized for calling the war “an insane outburst.”
Despite the pro-war hysteria that countries use to justify their military endeavors, conscientious objection remains a courageous option for those committed to peace. As the ongoing genocide of Palestinians unfolds in front of the eyes of the world, a couple of young Israelis are choosing this brave, though unpopular, path.
“Slaughter cannot solve slaughter,” 18-year-old Israeli-American Tal Mitnick said in December 2023 before receiving his first 30-day prison sentence for refusing to join Israel’s military.
The same week that Tal refused for the third time and received a third term in prison, he was joined by fellow teenager Sofia Orr. “I reject participating in the violent policies of oppression and apartheid that Israel has imposed on the Palestinian people, especially now during the war,” she said.
It’s not the sentences Tal and Sofia are enduring that make their actions exceptional. They have options. In fact, 12 percent of conscripted Israelis get out of service through notoriously easy-to-obtain mental health exemptions. Instead of the 10-year terms that Russian draft evaders face, even when Israelis are sentenced for refusing, they receive consecutive sentences with breaks in between to see if they have changed their minds.
Tal and Sofia are not being held indefinitely in overcrowded, abusive, deadly prison facilities like incarcerated Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank. But, what Tal and Sophia are doing is heroic and places them within a legacy of great peacemakers.
The earliest recorded act of conscientious objection occurred in 295 A.D. when Maximilianus refused his conscription into the Roman Army. He was beheaded for refusing to kill. Later, he was canonized as a saint.
Like Maximilianus, Austrian farmer Franz Jägerstätter was arrested and executed for refusing conscription by the Nazis. He wrote, "I find that [my hands being in chains is] much better than if my will were in chains. Neither prison nor chains nor sentence of death can rob a man of the Faith and his free will.”
When, in 1944, devout Quaker Bayard Rustin was sentenced to three years for refusing to serve in World War II, he devoted his prison time to racial justice work. A disciple of Gandhian nonviolence, he organized his fellow prisoners to resist segregation in the prison. He was so successful that the head of the prison described him as “an extremely capable agitator.” Upon release, he traveled the country organizing communities, including the “First Freedom Ride” in 1947.
James Lawson, also a student of Gandhi, spent 13 months in prison between 1951 and 1952 for refusing to serve during the Korean War. Lawson went on to become, along with Rustin, an essential advisor to Dr. Martin Luther King.
Since its campaigns were broadcast on TV across America, the civil rights movement challenged the public, especially American youth, to choose between justice and segregation — between equality and oppression. At the same time, there was a surge of draft evaders and conscientious objectors to the Vietnam War, including prominent leaders like “good troublemaker” John Lewis.
Refusing and avoiding conscription became so popular during the Vietnam War that President Nixon’s commission reported that the movement was “expanding at an alarming rate,” leaving the government “almost powerless to apprehend and prosecute them.”
With the majority of Israelis opposing an end to the war in Gaza and 72 percent of them supporting no humanitarian aid, Tal and Sofia are not part of a growing popular movement, like what took place during the Vietnam War. But their contributions to peace are no less important.
Whether or not other young Israelis join them in jail — Tal and Sofia were part of a group of 200 Jewish Israeli 12th graders who pledged in August 2023 to refuse military service to protest the government’s effort to overhaul Israel’s judicial system — what Tal and Sofia have done places profound marks on the pages of history.
Members and contributors to the Fellowship of Reconciliation include the likes of Jane Addams, A.J. Muste, Mahatma Gandhi, Bayard Rustin, Martin Luther King Jr., Daniel Berrigan, Dorothy Day, James Lawson, and countless other brave conscientious objectors and peacemakers.
Today, as the world is watching a genocide take place in real-time — as of this writing, the death toll in Gaza is approaching 32,000 and famine is setting in — FOR-USA is proud to be raising money for an ad in an Israeli newspaper lifting up two of the most important conscientious objectors of our time. We invite you to join us by following Tal and Sofia’s journey at forusa.org/IsraeliRefusers.
Keep ReadingShow Less
This Season of Peace, the World’s Soldiers Should Declare a Truce
Let’s suggest to the fighters among the various warring parties from the Middle East to Europe to Africa and beyond that they refuse to kill each other for a while.
Dec 24, 2023
An iconic song back in the 1960’s addressed the causes of war, and what leads young people to fight in them. Buffy Saint Marie’s “Universal Soldier” advised that we could end war if soldiers refused to fight. So what if we gave her idea a test this winter? Let’s suggest to the soldiers among the various warring parties from the Middle East to Europe to Africa and beyond that they refuse to kill each other for a while.
This idea may not be as crazy as it first may sound, and in fact has been tried in the past with limited success. Resistance to war is taking place right now in both Eastern Europe and the Middle East. In Israel, thousands of military reservists are refusing to take part in the violence of the occupation, and in protest of the country’s drift toward authoritarianism. Among Palestinians, non-violent resistance also has a very large following, and has had for a number of years. And if anything, the numbers of military refuseniks in Russia and Ukraine are even greater. The BBC has reported that 20,000 young men have fled Ukraine to avoid military service, and those numbers in Russia are likely higher.
In fact, resistance to war by young men facing conscription and even active duty soldiers is not new, and has a storied history.
it is incredible that crucial facts about our military adventures, such as GI resistance during the Vietnam War, are almost entirely absent from the news and history as it is taught.
For instance, during the First World War on the evening of December 24 in 1914, peace broke out in the most unlikely of places. In the blasted, putrid trenches of Belgium and France, soldiers fighting on the Western Front put aside their arms in what became known as the Christmas Truce. Although World War I was then only a few months old, there had already been a million combat deaths. Many soldiers were weary of the futility and horrific costs of the war, and thousands of them spontaneously stopped trying to kill each other.
The drama began on Christmas Eve, as German soldiers lit up their Tannenbaums (Christmas trees), put them on top of their trenches in view of the Allied troops, and began to sing carols. From there, full scale fraternization became widespread. Troops put down their weapons, climbed out of the trenches, and met in no-mans-land to pray and sing and exchange greetings and gifts. The cease fire continued into Christmas Day, during which the dead were buried, toasts were exchanged, and soccer games played.
The break in hostilities was actually a mutiny, not a truce. It was initiated by the soldiers themselves against express orders from military commanders. In fact, the political and military leaders on both sides were horrified when the shooting stopped and did everything they could to force a rapid resumption of hostilities. Dire threats of severe punishment were issued, and the news of the rebellion was suppressed. But in spite of this, it took weeks for the fighting to resume in some areas. Lance Corporal Adolph Hitler, serving with the Bavarian Army, did not think much of the cease-fire either.
The Christmas Truce is often portrayed as a singular event, and it is true that in the later years of the war there were few holiday cease-fires. But as the war ground on in its destructive stupidity, very large mutinies took place. In the East, the Russian army disintegrated, the soldiers voted with their feet and went home to make revolution. There were also large-scale mutinies among German and French troops, weary of being fodder for cannons. Much of Europe, not just Russia, teetered on the brink of revolution.
In fact, military mutinies have been common throughout history. During the Napoleonic Wars entire British naval fleets rebelled over brutal treatment and sympathy with French republican ideals. Warships commanded by mutineers blockaded the port of London.
The United States armed forces have at times also rebelled, for a variety of reasons. During the Mexican American War of 1846 to 1848 an entire battalion of Irish immigrants went over to the Mexican side; and in the Civil War fraternization was widespread.
But it was during the Vietnam War that resistance from inside the U.S. military was most consequential. By 1971 the U.S. military was nearly unable to function due to active dissent among all branches of the armed forces. Aircraft carriers could not put to sea, airmen declined to fly, and ground units did not engage. Disgruntled troops had as much as or more to do with ending the war than the anti-war movement.
Upon reflection, it is incredible that crucial facts about our military adventures, such as GI resistance during the Vietnam War, are almost entirely absent from the news and history as it is taught. The topic is deemed inappropriate for young minds in our high schools and most universities, and has all but disappeared from the public consciousness. One cannot help but wonder how free our free society actually is.
In this season of peace, the citizens of the world can hope for another spontaneous truce from the trenches. If so, Buffy Saint Marie will deserve some of the credit.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Is Gaza the Next Sarajevo? Examining Parallels to WWI & American Empire's Suez Canal Moment
As important as declining U.S. economic and military power are to collapsing American influence in the world, declining U.S. diplomatic power is equally important.
Nov 27, 2023
Is Gaza the Sarajevo on the Sinai or the U.S.’ Suez? That is, is it the starting point of World War III, or the apex of U.S. empire, signaling irreversible decline? The difference could not be more important.
Sarajevo was the city in Bosnia where World War I started. The Great War, as it was called, industrialized human slaughter, destroyed four great empires, led eleven countries to become dictatorships, and laid out the contours of the modern Middle East. It was the moment when the center of global leadership shifted from Europe, where it had resided for the prior 400 years, to the United States.
World War I rearranged the architecture of global power more quickly, completely, and to lasting effect than any event of the last 1,000 years. It is useful to understand what the War was all about and what it can tell us about today.
The War was the result of ascendant German power threatening to displace dominant British power. The parallel between ascendant China and dominant America is inescapable.
The peaking of economic vitality is one thing, military impotence still another.
Britain had invented the First Industrial Revolution, in the 1700s. It was based on iron, steam, and textiles. That was the reason Britain was the leading power in the world for the whole of the nineteenth century. But it was Germany that pioneered the Second Industrial Revolution, the one based on steel, internal combustion, and chemicals. As a result, by the end of the 1800s, Germany had surpassed Britain in industrial and commercial power. The numbers tell the story.
In 1860, Britain held 59% of global wealth to Germany’s 3%, a twenty-to-one advantage. But by 1913, the year before World War I started, Germany held 21% of global wealth to Britain’s 14%. The reversal in economic power was stunning. If it was not reversed, Britain would be eclipsed as the world’s leading power. So, they went to war.
Is this where the U.S. is today with regards to China? No historic comparisons are ever perfect, but the numbers are ominous.
In 1980, the U.S. produced 21% of the world’s economic output, measured as purchasing power parity. China’s share was just over 2%, a ten-to-one advantage for the U.S. But by 2022, the positions had switched. The U.S. produced 15% of global output, China, 21%. The reversal in economic power is stunning, and the gap is increasing. China is simply blowing by the U.S. If it is not reversed—and there’s no sign that it will be—the U.S. will be eclipsed as the world’s leading power. The parallel to World War I is inescapable.
U.S. national security dogma echoes the concern with this dynamic. Documents describe China as the U.S.’ “pacing challenger.” Secretary of State Anthony Blinken has stated that, “China is the only nation that has both the means and intent to challenge U.S. leadership of the global order.” An Air Force general has ruminated that he believes the U.S. will be in a kinetic war with China by 2025.
Is Gaza going to be the Sarajevo of World War III, the trigger that escalates to the point that global war—World War—is inevitable? Save for a cataclysmic error, it will not.
To be sure, Israel will do all that it can to goad the U.S. into attacking its (Israel’s) arch-enemy, Iran. It succeeded in getting the U.S. to take out its earlier rivals, Iraq and Libya, and attack Syria and Sudan. But the U.S. is too leery to commit to a war with Iran, which would inevitably drag in Iran’s allies, Russia, and China. That’s the potential path to War, but the U.S. has the most to lose from it.
Wars destroy economic orders, even for the victors, as Britain learned at such cost in World War I. As THE chief beneficiary of the global system, the U.S. has the most to lose by its destruction. Besides, its own war gaming exercises consistently show that it will lose a war against China. That is made much more likely now that the U.S. has stupidly driven Russia, the world’s #1 military power, into a deep strategic alliance with China.
Additionally, the U.S. has not been able to extricate itself from the Middle East and complete the “Pivot to Asia” that Barack Obama began in 2011. That was the purpose of the U.S.-sponsored Abraham Accords where Arab states would recognize and assume normal relations with Israel. The Gaza war has put an end to that. Until the U.S. can stabilize the Middle East in the hands of a group of collaborative, U.S.-friendly nations, it isn’t ready to carry out another war, certainly not a World War.
Most importantly, save for an all-out nuclear war that would destroy much of life on the planet, the U.S. is not even capable of winning a minor war, not to mention a World War.
It couldn’t win in Iraq, a nation of 45 million people that had been bombed nonstop for more than a decade before the calamitous U.S. invasion in 2003. It couldn’t win in twenty years in Afghanistan, either, a fourth-world country of 40 million, with no air force or even artillery. Its Taliban fighters had literally been living in caves.
And, it hasn’t been announced yet, for political reasons, and won’t be until after the 2024 elections, but the U.S. has been roundly defeated in Ukraine. Ukraine is a country that was willing to sacrifice more than 500,000 of its men (recall, the U.S. pulled out of Vietnam because it could not tolerate the loss of 58,000), but the U.S. could not even manage to keep it supplied with artillery shells.
Given all of this, it is laughable to even contemplate that the U.S. is ready to escalate to World War with China + Russia and their combined 1.6 billion people. They have been on notice of U.S. intentions for decades, have equal or superior weapons system to the U.S. (think hypersonic missiles of which the U.S. has none), and, of course, nukes.
So, if Gaza is not the world’s Sarajevo, is it the U.S.’ Suez? This is a much more likely scenario.
Suez was the event in 1956 that signaled the end of the British Empire. Britain had enlisted France and Israel to invade Egypt following Nasser’s nationalization of the Suez Canal. It was an all-but Keystone Cops caper that was ended when Eisenhower threatened to destroy the pound sterling if Britain did not desist.
So, Britain tucked its tail between its legs and slunk home. It was the moment of high humiliation for the country that once had boasted that “The sun never sets on the British Empire.” It was reduced to second class status as a world power and forced into selling off the family china to maintain appearances.
Suez is a much more likely portent of the future for the U.S. than is Sarajevo. The reasons are all around us.
First is the declining economic power, mentioned above. China simply offers a more compelling model to the world for how to organize a nation’s economy, not to mention a world’s. It has lifted more people out of poverty more quickly than has any nation in history. Its stunning ascent has been accomplished without the invasion, brutalizing, and pillaging of other nations that has been so prominent a feature of U.S. hegemony.
Besides, the U.S. abandoned industrial power beginning in the 1980s so that its industrialists could make more money by producing in China, paying workers $1 an hour, and shipping the goods to the U.S. It worked. The already-obscenely wealthy became the newly-Pharoically wealthy, but the result was/is a hollowed out economy and society that the MAGAts are all too happy destroy to somehow get revenge on the perpetrators.
In important ways, the U.S. economy is a basket case. It cannot begin to pay its bills. It only keeps the lights on by borrowing trillions of dollars a year from other nations. In the past 32 years, since the end of the Cold War, it has borrowed $30 trillion, basically a trillion dollars a year. Now, it’s up to $2 trillion a year. Nobody has any illusions that it will ever be paid back. This is not a model of economic vibrancy. When the rest of the world refuses to buy any more U.S. debt, it will be lights out on the American Imperium. The U.S.’ principal adversaries, China and Russia, are working feverishly to see that that day comes, soon.
Similarly, declining military power. Besides the humiliating losses mentioned above, the military come-uppance for the U.S. is palpable as smaller nations like Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba, and even Yemen—the poorest nation in the Arab world—are no longer intimidated by U.S. bullying. This disdain for U.S. military power was made especially apparent in Ukraine where Russian-made weapons routinely made minced meat of supposedly superior American ones. All the world could see it.
As important as declining U.S. economic and military power are to collapsing American influence in the world, declining U.S. diplomatic power is equally important. Consider only the collapsing U.S. influence in the Middle East.
It lost its War in Iraq which was always premised on a lie, but not before killing more than 500,000 Iraqi children, a feat that U.S. Secretary of Madeleine Albright said on Sixty Minutes “was worth it.” Its use of depleted uranium weapons left Iraq the most radioactive country on earth. While in Iraq, the U.S. oversaw the creation of ISIS, not unlike its nurturing of al Qaeda in the Afghanistan war of the 1980s.
The U.S. shipped weapons from Libya, to ISIS in Syria, to help it overthrow the Syrian government, an ally of Iran. That’s what Benghazi was all about. But the U.S. plan failed when Russia intervened to stop the overthrow, in 2015. The U.S. still occupies Syrian oil fields in the east, stealing its oil to fund its black operations around the world. All the world sees it.
China pulled off a rapprochement between historic rivals Iran and long-time U.S. ally, Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia announced last year that it would soon begin selling oil in yuan, a body blow to the dollar as the international reserve currency. Saudi Arabia also threw in with Russia against the explicit request of Joe Biden that it lower oil prices to help Biden and the Democrats in the 2022 election. It also buried the hatchet in its hostility against Syria.
By ceding the diplomatic initiative and losing its wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, and Lebanon (via its proxy, Israel, in 2006), the U.S. has left its arch-enemy, Iran, with dominant influence over much of west Asia, from the Indian Ocean in the south to the Caspian Sea in the north, from the border with Afghanistan in the east, to the Mediterranean Sea in the west. It is a collapse in influence of startling speed and catastrophic proportions in one of the most important regions of the world.
It is likely that this plummeting loss of U.S. power and prestige was a factor behind Israel’s vastly disproportionate response to the Hamas attack in Gaza: it knew that U.S. influence was waning and that the U.S. would not be able to provide cover for it much longer. Collapsing power develops its own self-reinforcing dynamic.
Most important in defining Gaza as a Suez moment for the U.S. is its collapsed moral power.
The U.S. is deeply, inextricably complicit in the most notorious genocide of the twenty-first century. It is not only providing funding, weapons, intelligence, and military cover to Israel in the form of two full aircraft carrier groups in the eastern Mediterranean. For 75 years, it has provided the diplomatic cover at the United Nations that has allowed Israel to carry out its nakedly apartheid regime against the Palestinian people, and now, with impunity, its genocide.
Most of the rest of the world recognizes the overtly colonialist nature of the Israeli enterprise. It is a group of European- and later, American-descended settlers who came to the Middle East explicitly to dispossess the Palestinian people of their land through the process of ethnic cleansing. One of the ideological fathers of Zionism, Vladimir (Ze’ev) Jabotinsky, said exactly this in his infamous essay, The Iron Wall:
“We shall trace the root of the evil to this – that we are seeking to colonise a country against the wishes of its population, in other words, by force. Everything else that is undesirable grows out of this root.”
The first Prime Minister of Israel, David Ben-Gurion, by then engaged in the war that created Israel, laid out the mechanism—ethnic cleansing—by which this colonization would take place:
“The Arabs will have to go, but one needs an opportune moment for making it happen, such as a war.”
Everything in past 75 years of Israeli history is but a footnote to these two vestigial sins: colonization and ethnic cleansing. The present war is simply Netanyahu’s seizing the pretext of war, as Ben-Gurion commended, to carry out the Final Solution. The world sees this. It is as unmistakable as it is despicable, something no civilized nation could sanction. Yet, the U.S. claims impunity, for both itself and Israel, in supporting Israel’s destruction and rape of the Palestinian people.
It is important to understand why this is so abhorrent to most of the people of the world, and, therefore, so damaging to longer-term U.S. interests.
It is impossible to overstate the collapse of U.S. influence and prestige in the world, especially in the Middle East.
Most of the nations of the world were at one time in the not-too-distant past colonies of Western imperial powers. They carry in their cultural consciousness, their historical narratives, the obloquy, the shame and disgrace, of having been dominated and humiliated by white Western powers for decades, in some cases for centuries.
They see Israel and Palestine as simply an updated version of the same predation they suffered themselves before their struggles for national independence, beginning right after World War II. This is what the Wars for National Liberation were about in the 1950s and 1960s. More than 90 nations fought their Western imperial occupiers to achieve independence. Their names are the iconic battles of the Cold War: Algeria; Vietnam; Indonesia; Angola; Cuba; Congo; Nicaragua; Kenya…
What is different this time is the fact of pervasive global social media. No longer are local leaders, so often bought with U.S. money, able to dictate what their people know and are allowed to believe. No longer are U.S.-controlled mass media able to hide the truth to insulate the perpetrators of atrocities from the opprobrium, the stigma, of their heinous acts.
Four billion people are witnessing daily the unthinkable horrors inflicted by the Israelis on the Palestinians, and the U.S.’ breathless support for it: the murder of thousands of innocent, defenseless children; the intentional destruction of hospitals, schools, churches, mosques, relief agencies, escape convoys, water and power stations; the shutting off of food, water, electricity, medicine, and fuel, in the certainty that this will render Gaza uninhabitable, i.e., to complete the ethnic cleansing that has always, since the beginning of the enterprise, in the Zionists’ own words, been the goal.
The peaking of economic vitality is one thing, military impotence still another. The resultant diplomatic flaccidity (or, ineptness; it’s hard to say which) is an almost inevitable concomitant. But it is the moral collapse, obvious for all the world to see, that has cost the U.S. the most, has devastated its capacity to credibly claim to be “the leader of the world.” It believes itself impervious to the dictates of universal moral and ethical standards. It could not be more wrong.
It is impossible to overstate the collapse of U.S. influence and prestige in the world, especially in the Middle East. That is why Suez might be the right analogy for how the U.S. empire has peaked and is now destroying itself. It bumbles along, intoxicated with the childish delusion of its “exceptionalism” and its rosy remembrance of its once-great, glorious past. It is, instead, like a snowball, careening down a mountainside, oblivious of its path, heedless of its destructive, out-of-control nature, and picking up mass and momentum as it hurtles to its own demise. What lies at the bottom is impossible to know. But it will not be pretty.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Let’s Restore Armistice Day
The original November 11 embodied a resolve for world peace.
Nov 10, 2023
November 11—at the “11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month”—marks 105 years since the World War 1 armistice, which ended the nightmare of the deadliest war in history until then. The brutality of that first industrial war robbed 20 million soldiers and civilians of life and wounded another 20 million. In 1926 the U.S. Congress declared November 11 as Armistice Day: a legal holiday “to commemorate with thanksgiving and prayer and exercises designed to perpetuate peace through good will and mutual understanding between nations.” Subsequently, President Calvin Coolidge issued a proclamation “inviting the people of the United States to observe the day in schools and churches with appropriate ceremonies of friendly relations with all other peoples.”
Armistice Day embodied a resolve for world peace.
All public ideals of peace with all other peoples were discarded on June 1, 1954, when the U.S. government renamed Armistice Day as Veterans Day. This erasure of Armistice Day tragically matched our country’s history of militarism after World War II: first bombing North Korea nearly out of existence and metastasizing into a pathological military-industrial-government complex that claims the lion’s share of our discretionary federal taxes and steals from our government’s social investments in health, education, housing, and welfare.
Undoubtedly, the voices of Russian and Ukrainian soldiers and vets turned war resisters will emerge in time in bitter protest against that war.
Former Marine Corps officer Camillo Mac Bica interprets the rebranding of Armistice day to Veterans Day as enabling militarists and war profiteers “to celebrate and promote militarism… misrepresent war members of the military as heroes, and encourage the enlistment of cannon fodder for future war for profit.” Many thousands of soldiers and veterans of major U.S. wars of the 20th and 21st centuries, including Mac Bica, have turned against war and revived the intent of Armistice Day: “friendly relations with all other peoples.”
Veterans For Peace was founded in 1985 by 10 U.S. veterans in response to the global nuclear arms race and U.S. military interventions in Central America.
In their words, it “is an organization of former soldiers and allies who know too well the costs of war—the obvious, visible wounds; the unseen wounds that curse us and our families for generations and the cost to society of maintaining a military larger than the next ten nations combined. Bitter experience taught us that war is insanity and suffering.”
Imagine (in the spirit of John Lennon) if every school celebrated at least one day of peacemaking for all 5th graders on International Peace Day September 21, as does the Maine Endwell School District with partners Veterans for Peace and the local historical society. The day is replete with music, with children playing instruments and making posters, a magician, and beekeepers—all with themes of peace—and interviews with children regarding what peace means to them.
Veterans for Peace’s position on the current war in Ukraine embodies their lived ideals: “It is time to drop the weapons and embrace diplomacy and peace. For the people of Ukraine, the people of Russia, the people of Europe, the United States and China. For the children, for the civilians, for the soldiers, for all living things: We demand Diplomacy, Not War. We demand Peace in Ukraine.”
I am reminded, as I write this piece, of Erich Maria Remarque who enlisted at age 19 in the World War I German army. Some 10 years after the war’s end, he published his first (and what some consider the greatest) anti-war novel, All Quiet on the Western Front. Remarque’s 19-year-old soldier protagonist acutely observes the corrupt dynamics of war: “I see how peoples are set against each other... foolishly, innocently, obediently slaying each other… While they [the promoters and boosters] continued to talk and write, we saw the wounded and dying…The wrong people do the fighting.”
In perhaps the most incisive moment of Remarque’s novel, a young German soldier gazes upon a young French soldier he has killed and ponders their common humanity, with words that undercut the war’s hard-bitten hatred and national chauvinism. “Why do they never tell us that you are poor devils like us, that your mothers are just as anxious as ours, and that we have the same fear of death, and the same dying and the same agony.”
Undoubtedly, the voices of Russian and Ukrainian soldiers and vets turned war resisters will emerge in time in bitter protest against that war.
We remember soldiers who have died in U.S. wars on Memorial Day and soldiers who have served in the U.S. military, especially those maimed, injured, and broken by the moral injury of war, on Veterans Day.
Why not, then, RESTORE Armistice Day with its resolve for “friendly relations with all other peoples” for the sake of world peace, if we are to survive.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Making Madness Normal in Wartime
A new book on World War I by journalist Charles Glass, who has covered recent wars in the Middle East, offers an opportunity for us to compare then and now.
Jul 05, 2023
Midway through his cumulatively stunning new book Soldiers Don’t Go Mad, author Charles Glass quotes a declaration from The Times of London on August 18, 1917: “The war has brought new opportunities of heroism to us all. Every Briton in the full strength of manhood is a soldier, and the business of fighting is his duty.”
At that point, World War I had been going on for three years, and it was to continue for another 15 months. The war killed nearly 10 million soldiers and wounded many others, while destroying the lives of uncounted civilians. All the talk about “heroism” and “duty” greased the wheels for slaughter.
Such words have an unnerving echo in our era. They sound familiar, just as the massive profiteering from “the Great War” has its counterparts in the endlessly bullish marketplace for Pentagon contracts.
Despite all the differences in eras, the continuities are deeply significant: starting with the reality that wars are still war and humans are still human.
By telling “A Story of Brotherhood, Poetry, and Mental Illness During the First World War”—the subtitle of his book—Glass offers an opportunity for us to compare then and now. Despite all the differences in eras, the continuities are deeply significant: starting with the reality that wars are still war and humans are still human. And, whether called shell shock or PTSD, the human consequences are evaded by top officials who order young people to kill.
Two years after war broke out in 1914, the British government set up an innovative mental institution (for “officers only”) in Scotland. Aiming to help officers who’d been traumatized in battle, Craiglockhart War Hospital treated 1,801 of them during a 30-month period. The treatment was advanced and enlightened. Yet, as Glass points out, “many of the ‘cured’ officers from Craiglockhart suffered trauma for the rest of their lives.”
The book focuses largely on Wilfred Owen and Siegfried Sassoon, two renowned poets of the First World War, who met at Craiglockhart and developed a close bond. Sassoon, a half-dozen years older than Owen, went public with his opposition to the war after experiencing its horrors in battlefields of France—yet, later on, after some recuperation, he chose to go back into combat. Owen, more reluctantly, also returned to the bloody grind of trench warfare.
Owen wrote poetry during lulls in combat. Shot dead just days before the armistice, he was 26 years old.
A famous poem by Owen ends with a Latin phrase (from the Roman poet Horace) that translates as “It is sweet and fitting to die for one’s country.” The poem concludes this way:
If in some smothering dreams, you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil’s sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,—
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori.
Yet both Owen and Sassoon were fierce and daring fighters who led men into battle, even as remorse hovered. A poem that Owen wrote in 1918, titled “Strange Meeting,” not only “revealed a poetic genius,” Glass observes, “but also guilt at killing even as he engaged it.” Owen, in command of a platoon, was determined to prove himself the epitome of courage rather than cowardice—an excellent commander and killer—yet his poetry depicted the results as hellish rather than glorious.
Such paradoxes, with fervent warriors who don’t necessarily believe in the war they’re fighting, give us a lot to think about in our own time. The disconnects between conformity and conscience might not be easy to comprehend.
As the war neared its end, Sassoon asked himself a hard question: “How could I begin my life all over again, when I had no conviction about anything except that the War was a dirty trick which has been played on me and my generation?” As Glass wrote, “The perpetual conflict between the warrior and the pacifist raged within him.”
The normalized baseline, from the top of the command structure, was basically insane. So, naturally, when Sassoon issued a public protest against the war, the government attributed his protest to insanity.
It might seem odd that Owen and Sassoon, capable of writing such powerfully haunting poetry about the barbarism of war, would willingly return to—and strive to excel at—warfare that was steadily massacring people on a huge scale. But the solidarity of brotherhood among troops and the pressures of nationalism made few consider opting out of a deranged war. It didn’t help that, as Glass notes, 300 “shell-shocked men” were executed by the British government “for desertion or cowardice.”
The normalized baseline, from the top of the command structure, was basically insane. So, naturally, when Sassoon issued a public protest against the war, the government attributed his protest to insanity.
Technological “advances” had made it possible for governments to turn World War I into a merciless charnel house on a vast scale. Back then, the majority of war’s victims were soldiers. In the 21st century, most of war victims have been civilians.
All the changes aside, some basics are still in place. Ever since the invasions of Afghanistan in October 2001 and Iraq in March 2003, many people in the U.S. military have seen the evils of the warfare marketed under the “war on terror” slogan. But conformity has flourished in the service of the war machine. Government leaders remain masters of deception, while enormous numbers of human beings suffer the consequences.
As a journalist, Charles Glass has covered wars on the ground in the Middle East and elsewhere for several decades. His insights are subtle yet palpable in Soldiers Don’t Go Mad, evoking the power of war to haunt, traumatize, and destroy long after the last bombs explode. Fittingly, his book’s title comes from a 1917 poem by Siegfried Sassoon—titled “Repression of War Experience”—that includes these lines: “And it’s been proved that soldiers don’t go mad / Unless they lose control of ugly thoughts / That drive them out to jabber among the trees.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
War for Profit: A Very Short History
As they did over a century ago ahead of World War I, the Merchants of Death thrive behind a veil of duplicity and slick media campaigns.
May 08, 2023
The senseless slaughter of World War I began with the murder of a single man, a Crown Prince of a European empire whose name no one was particularly familiar with at the time. Archduke Franz Ferdinand Carl Ludwig Joseph Maria was the presumptive heir to the Austrian-Hungarian empire in June of 1914.
His assassin was a young Bosnian Serb student and the murder of the Crown Prince set off a cataclysmic series of events resulting in the deaths of over 20 million people, half of whom were civilians. An additional 20 million people were wounded.
Entire generations of young men from England, France, Russia, Austria, and Germany were lost. National economies were ruined. In economic terms, World War I caused the greatest global depression of the 20th century. Debts by all the major countries (except the USA) haunted the post-war economic world. Unemployment soared. Inflation increased, most dramatically in Germany where hyperinflation meant that a loaf of bread costs 200 million marks.
World War I ended a period of economic success. Twenty years of fiscal insecurity and suffering followed. It is thought that veterans returning home from World War I brought with them the Spanish Flu, which killed almost one million Americans. The war also laid the groundwork for World War II.
Wherever they go, suffering and death, war crimes and atrocities, profits, and stock buybacks follow.
Was it simply the murder of the Crown Prince that caused a world war or were other factors at work? Why did the United States get involved in a European conflict, particularly when an overwhelming number of Americans were against the United States being involved?
Despite major public opposition to the war, Congress voted overwhelmingly in favor of it: 373 to 50 in the House of Representatives, 82 to six in the Senate. The politicians defied the wishes of the people they were supposed to represent. What happened? Was something else driving their votes?
J.P. Morgan and Company was one of the largest investment banking firms in the world. J.P. Morgan himself was the official business agent in the United States for the British government and the main contact for Allied loans during the war. Similarly, E.I. du Pont Company was the largest chemical firm in America. These two phenomenally wealthy and powerful companies along with other US manufacturers, including US weapons manufacturers, were closely aligned with President Woodrow Wilson.
When World War I began, JP Morgan had extensive loans to Europe which would be lost if the allies were defeated. Du Pont and other US weapons manufacturers stood to make astronomical profits if the United States entered the war. Historian Alan Brugar wrote that for every soldier who died in battle, the international bankers made a profit of $10,000. As J.P. Morgan wrote to Wilson in 1914, “The war should be a tremendous opportunity for America.”
When the war concluded and the dead and wounded were counted, suspicions grew in the United States that nefarious business interests had propelled US involvement into the great slaughter. Investigative reporting and congressional hearings were initiated.
In 1934 a book written by Helmuth Engelbrecht called The Merchants of Death became a best seller. The book exposed the unethical business practices of weapons manufacturers and analyzed their enormous profits during World War I. The author concluded that “the rise and development of the arms merchants reveals them as a growing menace to World Peace.” While not the only reason for the US entering the war, it became clear the Merchants of Death lobbied both Congress and the President for war.
The American public was incensed. In 1934 almost 100,000 Americans signed a petition opposing increased armament production. Veterans paraded through Washington DC in 1935 in a march for peace. And Marine Major General Smedley Butler, two-time Medal of Honor winner, published his book War is a Racket, claiming he had been “a high-class muscle man for big business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer; a gangster for capitalism.” His book too became a bestseller.
The growing wave of public outrage led Senator Gerald Nye to initiate congressional hearings investigating whether US corporations, including weapons manufacturers, had led the United States into World War I. In two years, the Nye committee held 93 hearings and called more than 200 witnesses to testify, including JP Morgan and Pierre S. DuPont.
The committee conducted an extensive investigation searching the records of weapons manufacturers. They uncovered criminal and unethical actions including bribery of foreign officials, lobbying the United States government to obtain foreign sales, selling weapons to both sides of international disputes, and the covert undermining of disarmament conferences.
“The committee listened daily to men striving to defend acts which found them nothing more than international racketeers, bent upon gaining profit through a game of arming the world to fight itself,” Senator Nye declared in an October 1934 radio address.
The Senate Nye Committee recommended price controls, the transfer of Navy shipyards out of private hands, and increased industrial taxes. Senator Nye suggested that upon a declaration of war by Congress, taxes on annual income under $10,000 should automatically be doubled and higher incomes should be taxed at 98%. A journalist wrote at the time, “If such policies were enacted, businessmen would become our leading pacifists.”
The American public was outraged at the committee’s findings and so created some of the largest peace organizations the country had ever known. Committed to staying out of all future European wars, American college campuses in the 1930s had thousands of students taking oaths swearing they would never fight in a foreign war.
Farmers, laborers, intellectuals, ministers, people from all walks of life declared they would never again participate in a war fought to increase the profits of corporations.
And then, business fought back. They lobbied those in Congress to cut off funding for the Nye committee, which they soon did. A smear campaign was orchestrated against Senator Nye. The committees’ days were numbered.
In the end, the Nye Committee demonstrated that “these businesses were at the heart and center of a system that made going to war inevitable. They paved and greased the road to war.” With World War II, the Military Industrial Complex would explode and come to dominate American economic and political life.
Today, the Merchants of Death thrive behind a veil of duplicity and slick media campaigns. They have assimilated mainstream media and academia into their conglomerate. But their crimes are clear, and the evidence is overwhelming. Wherever they go, suffering and death, war crimes and atrocities, profits, and stock buybacks follow.
Ninety years after the original Merchants of Death hearings, the 2023 Merchants of Death War Crimes Tribunal will hold United States weapons manufacturers accountable for aiding and abetting the United States government in the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity. This Tribunal will shine a light on those who profit from war and will seek to end their bloody franchise. Let this time be the last time. We may not have another chance.
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Christmas Day that Peace Broke Out
As once again politicians seek to unleash the dogs of war, a one-man play recalls the brief holiday truce that marked the first year of World War I.
Dec 24, 2015
Last Friday night, I went to a small off-Broadway theater to see an engaging, poignant one-man show about the Christmas Truce of 1914. The title was Our Friends, the Enemy, written and performed by a young British actor named Alex Gwyther.
I felt bad for him; the theater was only about a third full that evening, probably because of the approaching holiday but perhaps also because we Americans simply are too often indifferent to a century-old fight that scorched the European continent.
You would scarcely know it here in the United States, but since last year, the British, French, Germans and others of our western allies have been commemorating the 100th anniversary of World War I, a conflict of extreme foolishness and colossal consequences, like almost every other.
Maybe our interest in this centennial has seemed lacking so far because we didn't enter The Great War until 1917. Or maybe it's because others' losses were so much more devastating than our own - we lost more than 53,000 lives but half of all Frenchmen who were between the ages of 20 and 32 died, and more than 35 percent of German men ages 19 to 22.
Some 723,000 British were killed, more than would die during World War II. No wonder, as Benjamin Schwarz wrote in The Atlantic back in 1999, "The war is Britain's national trauma, and British and Commonwealth historians compulsively revisit it in the way that American historians revisit the Civil War."
So I felt bad for the actor and sad that more people weren't in the theater to hear an important story ingrained in British memory so profoundly that last Christmas a UK supermarket chain even used a highly romanticized version of the events as the basis of a wildly popular and sentimental TV commercial.
In December 1914, World War I had been raging in Europe for some five months; British, French and Belgian troops fighting against Germany and Austria. Along the western front, trench warfare rapidly became the norm, soldiers on both sides deeply dug in, stuck in mud, filth and pestilence with a no-man's land sometimes just a few dozen yards wide running between the lines. This stalemate was steadily punctuated with rifle and cannon fire, death and anguished cries from the wounded.
On December 7 that year, Pope Benedict XV called for a Christmas Eve truce, "that the guns may fall silent at least upon the night the angels sang." His plea was rejected.
Few if any of the foot soldiers may have known about that papal imploration, but many of them took it upon themselves to make their own peace, however brief. On Christmas Eve, German troops along the line raised across the trench tops small Christmas trees lit by candles. The two sides sang carols to one another, their voices drifting warily across no man's land.
With daylight on Christmas morning, on each side, men cautiously peered from their trenches and a few ventured out to shake hands with their foes and exchange holiday greetings, followed by more and more. Artillery fire stopped.
James Boyce, the soldier played by Alex Gwyther in Our Friends, the Enemy, tells the tale:
"Grey and khaki begin to blend into one. Order of military rank and the barriers of language vanish, as they shake hands and introduce themselves in a mix of broken English and silent gestures. They offer small gifts of friendship -- drinks, cigarettes, buttons, badges, sketches they've drawn and in the warm absurdity of their Christmas morning, some exchange addresses to meet up after the war."
There are stories of impromptu soccer games or simple kick rounds with an actual ball or something vaguely spherical improvised from tin cans or straw-stuffed sandbags -- nothing as organized as the match that supermarket ad suggests. More organized were burial details that the momentary peace allowed to retrieve the dead. "We worked with the enemy," the character James Boyce recalls, "collecting the men whom we had killed together and attempted to clean up the mess of this war... It slowly dawned on us all - war was still upon us. A strange orange slithered over the dead, and two armies placed their heads in their hands."
That Christmas of 1914, the peace lasted in some places longer than others; and in still others it never happened at all. Afterwards, word came from on high that such behavior -- insubordination! -- would never again be permitted. One German infantryman in the trenches also thought it was a disgrace. "Such a thing should not happen in wartime," he declared. His name was Adolf Hitler.
In Our Friends, the Enemy, James Boyce recalls, "Tucked away from the war in a quiet corner of France, sheltered by trees and covered in frost, thick twigs tied together to form small crucifixes lunge out from the fluffy snow. A worn helmet rests under each cross.
"An old tree, built with a thick body stands over the small cemetery, its long branches watching over the small bumps in the snow. In its trunk, words have been carved using the bayonet of a rifle:
"'Death unites us all, and we all rest on the same side.'"
They called it "the war to end all wars." Pause for sardonic laughter, fast forward to today. Once again, politicians and others run around ferociously beating the war drums, pandering to our fears and baser instincts. In the end, while there are really very few differences among us, there will always be those who seek to turn those small differences into monsters. Do not let that happen.
We all rest on the same side. See you next year.
Save
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy